Judge's overreach
Proceedings marred by news-leak incident
August 17, 2002
After seven days of deliberations, the jury in the murder trial of David Westerfield appears to be engaged in a careful, methodical process of weighing the evidence. The proceedings were marred this week, however, when Superior Court Judge William Mudd permanently banished from the courtroom an assistant radio producer who said she had nothing to do with a news leak that angered the judge.
Mudd has done a commendable job of maintaining control in his courtroom and ensuring a fair trial amid frenzied media attention. But in reaching beyond the courtroom in a bid to control the news coverage, he overstepped his constitutional authority – and egregiously so.
Acknowledging he could be overturned by higher courts, the judge ejected producer River Stillwood, who was covering the trial for Rick Roberts, a radio talk show host.
Roberts provoked the judge's ire by broadcasting, through a confidential source, what had occurred in a hearing from which the judge had barred the press. The radio host made it very clear Stillwood was not involved in the leak.
What is alarming is that if Mudd is allowed to toss out one member of the news media arbitrarily, he can ban any or all journalists from his courtroom arbitrarily.
Nowhere in the Constitution, or California law, does it give a judge the right to retaliate against reporters because he doesn't like their coverage. He has absolutely no standing, as the First Amendment makes plain, to seek to silence critics outside the courthouse or otherwise infringe on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Such public expression is protected by the Constitution whether it pleases Judge Mudd or not.